Cheryl Mills (Hillary Clinton's chief of staff for many years) walked out of the FBI interrogation of her when she was asked about procedures, if any, by which the Clinton emails were turned over to the State Department. At least that is what the Washington Post reported today. It's not a good story from the point of view of the Clinton campaign. After all, Hillary keeps saying that she told her staff to be fully cooperative with the FBI. Now we hear that the chief of staff walked out rather than answer certain questions. Indeed, although Mills came back after a bit, she never answered the particular question according to the Post.
Because the story is hurtful to the Clinton narrative, the Washington Post reporters had to do some damage control. Accordingly, they kept adding extraneous comments in the text like this one:
So far, investigators have found scant evidence tying Clinton to criminal wrongdoing, though they are still probing the case aggressively.
At another point, they put in a note in different font color so that it would stand out. The note said that there's no real evidence of Clinton having a "malicious intent".
But here's the key: Malicious intent is not needed for Hillary to be guilty of a crime here. In fact, Hillary's intent is not even a subject of inquiry. It's what she did, not what she intended to do that matters. And as for there being "scant evidence" tying Clinton to criminal wrongdoing, how would the WaPo reporter know what the FBI has in its possession? After all, we already know that Hillary had a system set up that put top secret national security information onto an unsecured server as well as in a backup system located in a bathroom in Colorado and in the office files of her attorney. Neither the bathroom nor the attorney's office had anything like a security clearance to store such secrets. I think we need to be fair here, but no one in his right mind would call that "scant evidence" of criminal wrongdoing.
Why can't the Washington Post just report the news? Why do these reporters feel compelled to campaign for Hillary in the process of supposedly being journalists?
Because the story is hurtful to the Clinton narrative, the Washington Post reporters had to do some damage control. Accordingly, they kept adding extraneous comments in the text like this one:
So far, investigators have found scant evidence tying Clinton to criminal wrongdoing, though they are still probing the case aggressively.
At another point, they put in a note in different font color so that it would stand out. The note said that there's no real evidence of Clinton having a "malicious intent".
But here's the key: Malicious intent is not needed for Hillary to be guilty of a crime here. In fact, Hillary's intent is not even a subject of inquiry. It's what she did, not what she intended to do that matters. And as for there being "scant evidence" tying Clinton to criminal wrongdoing, how would the WaPo reporter know what the FBI has in its possession? After all, we already know that Hillary had a system set up that put top secret national security information onto an unsecured server as well as in a backup system located in a bathroom in Colorado and in the office files of her attorney. Neither the bathroom nor the attorney's office had anything like a security clearance to store such secrets. I think we need to be fair here, but no one in his right mind would call that "scant evidence" of criminal wrongdoing.
Why can't the Washington Post just report the news? Why do these reporters feel compelled to campaign for Hillary in the process of supposedly being journalists?
No comments:
Post a Comment